ICC officials should have known their man better. So naturally contentious a character as Darrell Hair was always unlikely to go quietly in circumstances where he believed himself to be in the right.

“I can confirm that I have instructed my lawyers to issue an application in the London Central Employment Tribunal alleging racial discrimination by the ICC and PCB [Pakistan Cricket Board],” Hair said at a press conference in Nairobi yesterday after umpiring, in his ICC capacity, the final of the ICC World Cricket League between Kenya and Scotland.

Hair has never forgiven his employers for releasing the text of his e-mail last August, when he offered to resign in return for $500,000 (about £250,000). His offer came in the immediate aftermath of his decision that Pakistan had forfeited the final Test at the Brit Oval by refusing to take the field after tea on the fourth day. Hair and his umpiring colleague, Billy Doctrove, had ordered the ball to be changed during the afternoon and awarded England five penalty runs because they believed that an unnamed Pakistan player or players had tampered with it, in contravention of Law 42.

In September, Inzamam-ul-Haq, the Pakistan captain, was cleared of ball-tampering but given a four-match ban for bringing the game into disrepute. Hair was banned from standing in Test matches by the ICC’s management board, comprising the chief executives of the Test nations, last November. He remains an ICC employee until March 31, 2008.

He believes that the PCB “unlawfully induced” the ICC to engage in discriminatory acts when it lobbied for his ban from Tests before the November meeting. Percy Sonn, the ICC president, said after that meeting: “It was clear from discussions that the board had lost confidence in Mr Hair.”

Dr Nasim Ashraf, the PCB chairman, said he was “outraged” when his lawyer passed on Hair’s written claims. “There was only one man that evening that did not want cricket to be played,” he said yesterday. “Mr Hair was removed from the elite panel of umpires by the full ICC board, which has many countries, because of his poor judgment.

“For him earlier to have also asked for a half a million dollars during the incident and saying ‘look, give me this money and I will simply walk away’ and now suing the ICC and naming the PCB as a party for racial discrimination, smacks to me of another bit of, perhaps, opportunism.”

Whatever his motives, Hair is accusing the PCB of the moral sin that he was accused of by the Pakistan board, implicitly at least. The emotive word “racial” may have been introduced for legal reasons and it will be for the law to decide whether there is substance in the suit, but it would not be hard to make a case on either side of unreasonable prejudice. Pakistan, angered by Hair’s umpiring in more than one series in 2005 and 2006, thought that he had not always treated them with fairness; the umpire, in turn, thought that they had a persecution complex.

It would have been sensible for the ICC officials charged with the placement of international umpires on their elite panel to preempt trouble by quietly making sure that Hair was not put in charge of matches, especially in Tests, involving Pakistan, at least until open wounds had healed.

Equally, the ICC’s failure to defend Hair’s right to uphold and enforce the laws of the game without fear or favour was transparent. Rightly or wrongly, he suspected ball-tampering and acted in strict accordance with the laws.

He did so officiously and with little sensitivity, but in collusion with, and with the agreement of, his fellow match umpire, not to mention, so far as anyone has been able to confirm, the referee, Mike Procter. At the least there should have been a public statement by the ICC, after its decision to suspend Hair from Tests, that he had done what he believed to be right and that the stability of the sport depends on umpires who apply the laws fairly.

When it came to making instant decisions on contentious matters, such as leg-befores and catches close to the wicket, Hair got his decisions right more often than others now on the elite panel. Their mistakes can alter the course of matches, as England may complain after some of the decisions that went against them in Australia this winter.

How the controversy unfolded

Aug 20, 2006 Pakistan ruled to have forfeited the final Test against England after refusing to take the field in protest at allegations of ball-tampering from the umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove

Aug 25 ICC reveals that Hair offered to resign in return for a payment of $500,000

Sept 28 Inzamam-ul-Haq, the Pakistan captain, is found not guilty of ball-tampering, but guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and given ban. ICC announces that Hair will not stand in Champions Trophy for reasons of security

October 31 Pakistan Cricket Board lodges a formal complaint about Hair with the ICC

Nov 4 ICC bans Hair from standing in internationals involving Test nations

Jan 13, 2007 Hair appointed to umpire one-day series involving second-tier nations in Kenya

Feb 7 Hair confirms he has instigated legal proceedings against ICC and PCB, alleging racial discrimination